| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Fix `panic` message for `BTreeSet`'s `range` API and document `panic` cases
Currently, the `panic` cases for [`BTreeSet`'s `range` API](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.BTreeSet.html#method.range) are undocumented and produce a slightly wrong `panic` message (says `BTreeMap` instead of `BTreeSet`).
Panic case 1 code:
```rust
use std::collections::BTreeSet;
use std::ops::Bound::Excluded;
fn main() {
let mut set = BTreeSet::new();
set.insert(3);
set.insert(5);
set.insert(8);
for &elem in set.range((Excluded(&3), Excluded(&3))) {
println!("{elem}");
}
}
```
Panic case 1 message:
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'range start and end are equal and excluded in BTreeMap', /rustc/fe5b13d681f25ee6474be29d748c65adcd91f69e/library/alloc/src/collections/btree/search.rs:105:17
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
```
Panic case 2 code:
```rust
use std::collections::BTreeSet;
use std::ops::Bound::Included;
fn main() {
let mut set = BTreeSet::new();
set.insert(3);
set.insert(5);
set.insert(8);
for &elem in set.range((Included(&8), Included(&3))) {
println!("{elem}");
}
}
```
Panic case 2:
```
thread 'main' panicked at 'range start is greater than range end in BTreeMap', /rustc/fe5b13d681f25ee6474be29d748c65adcd91f69e/library/alloc/src/collections/btree/search.rs:110:17
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
```
This PR fixes the output messages to say `BTreeSet`, adds the relevant unit tests, and updates the documentation for the API.
|
|
|
|
Fix documentation for `with_capacity` and `reserve` families of methods
Fixes #95614
Documentation for the following methods
- `with_capacity`
- `with_capacity_in`
- `with_capacity_and_hasher`
- `reserve`
- `reserve_exact`
- `try_reserve`
- `try_reserve_exact`
was inconsistent and often not entirely correct where they existed on the following types
- `Vec`
- `VecDeque`
- `String`
- `OsString`
- `PathBuf`
- `BinaryHeap`
- `HashSet`
- `HashMap`
- `BufWriter`
- `LineWriter`
since the allocator is allowed to allocate more than the requested capacity in all such cases, and will frequently "allocate" much more in the case of zero-sized types (I also checked `BufReader`, but there the docs appear to be accurate as it appears to actually allocate the exact capacity).
Some effort was made to make the documentation more consistent between types as well.
|
|
|
|
Documentation for the following methods
with_capacity
with_capacity_in
with_capacity_and_hasher
reserve
reserve_exact
try_reserve
try_reserve_exact
was inconsistent and often not entirely correct where they existed on the following types
Vec
VecDeque
String
OsString
PathBuf
BinaryHeap
HashSet
HashMap
BufWriter
LineWriter
since the allocator is allowed to allocate more than the requested capacity in all such cases, and will frequently "allocate" much more in the case of zero-sized types (I also checked BufReader, but there the docs appear to be accurate as it appears to actually allocate the exact capacity).
Some effort was made to make the documentation more consistent between types as well.
Fix with_capacity* methods for Vec
Fix *reserve* methods for Vec
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of VecDeque
Fix docs for String::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of String
Fix docs for OsString::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods on OsString
Fix docs for with_capacity* methods on HashSet
Fix docs for *reserve methods of HashSet
Fix docs for with_capacity* methods of HashMap
Fix docs for *reserve methods on HashMap
Fix expect messages about OOM in doctests
Fix docs for BinaryHeap::with_capacity
Fix docs for *reserve* methods of BinaryHeap
Fix typos
Fix docs for with_capacity on BufWriter and LineWriter
Fix consistent use of `hasher` between `HashMap` and `HashSet`
Fix warning in doc test
Add test for capacity of vec with ZST
Fix doc test error
|
|
Remove accidental uses of `&A: Allocator`
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98232
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98176 (for real this time)
|
|
|
|
Add VecDeque::extend from TrustedLen specialization
Continuation of #95904
Inspired by how [`VecDeque::copy_slice` works](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c08b235a5ce10167632bb0fddcd0c5d67f2d42e3/library/alloc/src/collections/vec_deque/mod.rs#L437-L454).
## Benchmarks
Before
```
test vec_deque::bench_extend_chained_bytes ... bench: 1,026 ns/iter (+/- 17)
test vec_deque::bench_extend_chained_trustedlen ... bench: 1,024 ns/iter (+/- 40)
test vec_deque::bench_extend_trustedlen ... bench: 637 ns/iter (+/- 693)
```
After
```
test vec_deque::bench_extend_chained_bytes ... bench: 828 ns/iter (+/- 24)
test vec_deque::bench_extend_chained_trustedlen ... bench: 25 ns/iter (+/- 1)
test vec_deque::bench_extend_trustedlen ... bench: 21 ns/iter (+/- 0)
```
## Why do it this way
https://rust.godbolt.org/z/15qY1fMYh
The Compiler Explorer example shows how "just" removing the capacity check, like the [`Vec` `TrustedLen` specialization](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/c08b235a5ce10167632bb0fddcd0c5d67f2d42e3/library/alloc/src/vec/spec_extend.rs#L22-L58) does, wouldn't have been enough for `VecDeque`. `wrap_add` would still have greatly limited what LLVM could do while optimizing.
---
r? `@the8472`
|
|
btree: avoid forcing the allocator to be a reference
The previous code forces the actual allocator used to be some `&A`. This generalizes the code to allow any `A: Copy`. If people truly want to use a reference, they can use `&A` themselves.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/98176
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
std: Stabilize feature try_reserve_2
This PR intends to stabilize feature `try_reserve_2`, closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/91789
This PR will also replace the previous PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95139
|
|
|
|
Entry and_modify doc
This PR modifies the documentation for [HashMap](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.HashMap.html#) and [BTreeMap](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.BTreeMap.html#) by introducing examples for `and_modify`. `and_modify` is a function that tends to give more idiomatic rust code when dealing with these data structures -- yet it lacked examples and was hidden away. This PR adds that and addresses #98122.
I've made some choices which I tried to explain in my commits. This is my first time contributing to rust, so hopefully, I made the right choices.
|
|
Signed-off-by: Xuanwo <github@xuanwo.io>
|
|
Incorrectly wrote "1" twice when writing test.
|
|
Updated the btree's documentation to include two references to
add_modify.
The first is when the `Entry` API is mentioned at the beginning. With
the same reasoning as HashMap's documentation, I thought it would best
to keep `attack`, but show the `mana` example.
The second is with the `entry` function that is used for the `Entry`
API. The code example was a perfect use for `add_modify`, which is why
it was changed to reflect that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTree: tweak internal comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Put a bound on collection misbehavior
As currently written, when a logic error occurs in a collection's trait parameters, this allows *completely arbitrary* misbehavior, so long as it does not cause undefined behavior in std. However, because the extent of misbehavior is not specified, it is allowed for *any* code in std to start misbehaving in arbitrary ways which are not formally UB; consider the theoretical example of a global which gets set on an observed logic error. Because the misbehavior is only bound by not resulting in UB from safe APIs and the crate-level encapsulation boundary of all of std, this makes writing user unsafe code that utilizes std theoretically impossible, as it now relies on undocumented QOI (quality of implementation) that unrelated parts of std cannot be caused to misbehave by a misuse of std::collections APIs.
In practice, this is a nonconcern, because std has reasonable QOI and an implementation that takes advantage of this freedom is essentially a malicious implementation and only compliant by the most langauage-lawyer reading of the documentation.
To close this hole, we just add a small clause to the existing logic error paragraph that ensures that any misbehavior is limited to the collection which observed the logic error, making it more plausible to prove the soundness of user unsafe code.
This is not meant to be formal; a formal refinement would likely need to mention that values derived from the collection can also misbehave after a logic error is observed, as well as define what it means to "observe" a logic error in the first place. This fix errs on the side of informality in order to close the hole without complicating a normal reading which can assume a reasonable nonmalicious QOI.
See also [discussion on IRLO][1].
[1]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/using-std-collections-and-unsafe-anything-can-happen/16640
r? rust-lang/libs-api ```@rustbot``` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
This technically adds a new guarantee to the documentation, though I argue as written it's one already implicitly provided.
|
|
Co-authored-by: lcnr <rust@lcnr.de>
|
|
refactor: VecDeques Iter fields to private
Made the fields of VecDeque's Iter private by creating a Iter::new(...) function to create a new instance of Iter and migrating usage to use Iter::new(...).
|
|
|
|
As currently written, when a logic error occurs in a collection's trait
parameters, this allows *completely arbitrary* misbehavior, so long as
it does not cause undefined behavior in std. However, because the extent
of misbehavior is not specified, it is allowed for *any* code in std to
start misbehaving in arbitrary ways which are not formally UB; consider
the theoretical example of a global which gets set on an observed logic
error. Because the misbehavior is only bound by not resulting in UB from
safe APIs and the crate-level encapsulation boundary of all of std, this
makes writing user unsafe code that utilizes std theoretically
impossible, as it now relies on undocumented QOI that unrelated parts of
std cannot be caused to misbehave by a misuse of std::collections APIs.
In practice, this is a nonconcern, because std has reasonable QOI and an
implementation that takes advantage of this freedom is essentially a
malicious implementation and only compliant by the most langauage-lawyer
reading of the documentation.
To close this hole, we just add a small clause to the existing logic
error paragraph that ensures that any misbehavior is limited to the
collection which observed the logic error, making it more plausible to
prove the soundness of user unsafe code.
This is not meant to be formal; a formal refinement would likely need to
mention that values derived from the collection can also misbehave after a
logic error is observed, as well as define what it means to "observe" a
logic error in the first place. This fix errs on the side of informality
in order to close the hole without complicating a normal reading which
can assume a reasonable nonmalicious QOI.
See also [discussion on IRLO][1].
[1]: https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/using-std-collections-and-unsafe-anything-can-happen/16640
|
|
|
|
This accomplishes two main goals:
- Make it clear who is responsible for prefix-freedom, including how they should do it
- Make it feasible for a `Hasher` that *doesn't* care about Hash-DoS resistance to get better performance by not hashing lengths
This does not change rustc-hash, since that's in an external crate, but that could potentially use it in future.
|
|
Classify BinaryHeap & LinkedList unit tests as such
All but one of these so-called integration test case are unit tests, just like btree's were (#75531). In addition, reunite the unit tests of linked_list that were split off during #23104 because they needed to remain unit tests (they were later moved to the separate file they are in during #63207). The two sets could remain separate files, but I opted to merge them back together, more or less in the order they used to be, apart from one duplicate name `test_split_off` and one duplicate tiny function `list_from`.
|
|
|
|
Fix some confusing wording and improve slice-search-related docs
This adds more links between `contains` and `binary_search` because I do think they have some relevant connections. If your (big) slice happens to be sorted and you know it, surely you should be using `[3; 100].binary_search(&5).is_ok()` over `[3; 100].contains(&5)`?
This also fixes the confusing "searches this sorted X" wording which just sounds really weird because it doesn't know whether it's actually sorted. It should be but it may not be. The new wording should make it clearer that you will probably want to sort it and in the same sentence it also mentions the related function `contains`.
Similarly, this mentions `binary_search` on `contains`' docs.
This also fixes some other minor stuff and inconsistencies.
|
|
[test] Add test cases for untested functions for VecDeque
Added test cases of the following functions
- get
- get_mut
- swap
- reserve_exact
- try_reserve_exact
- try_reserve
- contains
- rotate_left
- rotate_right
- binary_search
- binary_search_by
- binary_search_by_key
|
|
|
|
[test] Add test cases for untested functions for BTreeMap
- add `pop_first()`, `pop_last()`, `get_key_value()` and `try_insert()` test cases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BTreeMap::entry: Avoid allocating if no insertion
This PR allows the `VacantEntry` to borrow from an empty tree with no root, and to lazily allocate a new root node when the user calls `.insert(value)`.
|
